Wednesday, June 29, 2005

Announcing The Iraq FAQ

Alright, this has to stop.

No matter how many posts I write, or comments I respond to (on my site and others), I always end up back where I started, making the same points over and over again. While it makes for good sport, I'd like to start seeing some progress. The dialogue on Iraq has been kept in neutral for too long by people whose entire position is based on a series of false premises.

Enter the Iraq FAQ. I only have a few ideas for how this will work and it's bound to change as it grows. In the beginning I plan to address some of the "Big Lies" coming out of the Left, but as news breaks or people pose new questions I'll explore those as well. Furthermore, if a reader responds with a well-documented comment that debunks the original answer, I will post that underneath (and then do my damnedest to debunk it).

Later today I'll post the first Q and A; in the meantime feel free to post Q's you'd like me to address. By the way, you Libs may want to dig out your copy of Fahrenheit 9/11, you'll be needing the propaganda later to wash that "truth taste" out of your mouths.

Is there a link between the events of 9/11 and Iraq?The idea that Iraq "had nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks [on 9/11]" is one of the cornerstones of the Anti-War movement. This begs the question "Who was primarily responsible for 9/11?" The answer, of course, is Al Qaeda (and this conclusion is documented at length in the 9/11 Commission report starting on page 145).

Having established this, a pre-9/11 connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda would therefore establish an indirect link between Iraq and 9/11 (the fact that it is "indirect" is hardly significant; Al Qaeda is a body without a country, requiring a direct link would preclude any action being taken against Al Qaeda outside of the US, where it would presumably be too late).

There are numerous pieces of evidence for a pre-9/11 connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda:

"In addition, Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that Al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, Al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

The Mohammed Atta/Iraq connection. Although this is still in dispute, there continues to be strong evidence that one of the 9/11 hijackers met with an Iraqi Intelligence officer in 2001. See here and here for two detailed discussions of the evidence.

Evidence of Iraq's involvement in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing presented to the 9/11 Commission. This is perhaps the most interesting piece of evidence because it suggests the Iraq would use Islamic terrorists in a psuedo-military strike.

These are a small handful of examples that I chose to research further. An exhaustive list of evidence can be found here.

While some of the evidence is more conclusive than others, and none of it represent a smoking gun, the preponderance of evidence erases any doubt that Iraq was actively engaged with Al Qaeda before 9/11.

That's not good enough Brash, I need a direct link!Well, if that's the case you'll have to keep looking because no country played a direct role in 9/11. The evidence can all be found in the 9/11 Commission Report. Don't believe me? Let’s look at the facts:

Chapter 5 of the report (page 145) details the birth of the "planes operation". From the very beginning this was an all Al Qaeda production; the Taliban supplied safe haven for terrorists and funding (as the Taliban expected Al Qaeda to serve as a militia in future efforts to consolidate control of Afghanistan), but at no time did they participate in the plan itself.

When the Taliban learned of Bin Laden's plan, the leadership ordered him not to proceed. Bin Laden ignored them, gambling on the fact that they would not take action while Al Qaeda's cooperation was still needed for an assassination attempt on a leader of the Northern Alliance (page 252).

Of course some may consider the funding and offer of safe haven the equivalent of a direct link. By that rational, the same link can be made to Iraq.

While Al Qaeda was still in the early planning stages, the Iraqi government contacted Bin Laden and offered him safe haven in Iraq. The two groups met on a number of occasions, but Bin Laden ultimately rejected the offer because he was already established in Afghanistan (page 66). This is the same section with the oft quoted line "we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship". It wasn't for lack of trying; Bin Laden simply blew Saddam off.

Had Bin Laden accepted, the Iraqi government would have played the role of the Taliban on 9/11. Now ask yourself this question: If you solicit a hitman to do a job but he turns you down, do you still go to jail?

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Evening Edition: Fort Bragg Reactions

He didn't take my advice, but otherwise President Bush's speech was perfect.

Whether or not his critics will acknowledge it, Bush addressed a number of their concerns. He drew a straight line from the War on Terror to Iraq (using OBL's own words no less), he set strategic milestones (a constitution, a new election, and a self-sufficient Iraqi military), and he rebutted the argument that our progress in Iraq has stopped (continued development of both infrastructure and the Iraqi government).

The Left will be out in force tomorrow to reiterate all the talking points that were just torn to shreds. I'll save my energy for that.

Pay No Attention to The War Behind the Curtain

I skipped commenting on the Supreme Court's rulings yesterday and I'm going to take a permanent pass today; most of my thoughts have been already been covered elsewhere.

At any rate it's already old news, dropped by the media in favor of President Bush's press conference tonight. Even lovable loser John Kerry has crawled out of the woodwork to share the speech he would be giving this evening if Pro-Bush aliens at Area 51 hadn't hacked the voting machines in Ohio. The "speech" itself is that same old rhetoric that failed to get him elected last year, but what's missing is more interesting. The Democrats would like you to forget, but Iraq isn't the only war that's still being fought. Anyone remember Afghanistan?

The last time that conflict received any real press was when Nancy Pelosi triumphantly announced that "The war in Afghanistan is over"; triumphant not because America was victorious mind you, but because it meant we had to open the gates a Guantanamo and let the oppressed Taliban fighters free. Her argument might be worth debating if it wasn't for the pesky fact that the war in Afghanistan is still going on. Guess they don't cover that sort of thing in the San Francisco Chronicle.

As much as I'd like to chalk it up to pure ignorance, I believe the Democrats are ignoring Afghanistan for a specific reason. The leaders of the Democratic party never have supported the War on Terror. Despite all the belly-aching about Rove's comments last week, if they had their way we'd have never entered into war with Afghanistan or Iraq. Instead we would have taken the Clinton approach to the bombing of the USS Cole or the American embassies in Africa: lob a few bombs, make some arrests and call it a day.

After 9/11 however, the American public would never support that approach, so the Left needed to play along. Enter Afghanistan, a popular war that Dems could always keep in their back-pockets if something like Rove's remarks were ever leveled at them. This strategy creates a problem however, since it effectively hampers their ability to critique future conflicts. The solution? Create a public perception that "their" war was a big success: clean, quick, and painless. At the same time, paint any other conflicts as bloody, costly, and a quagmire.

So far the strategy is working, but President Bush has the opportunity tonight to refocus the debate. While he will certainly talk up all our successes in Iraq, he needs stress that the War Against Terror is ongoing all over the world, and pulling out of Iraq doesn't solve any problems, it just makes one worse. Democrats have created a false perception of this war; it's time to pull back the curtain.

Monday, June 27, 2005

The Enemy of My Enemy

Yes, I know it's a big day in the SCOTUS, but before that completely consumes the news cycle I want make a quick point.

Considering the uproar over Rove's remarks last week, the Left missed a perfect opportunity this weekend to prove that they can stand with President Bush and condemn a common enemy. Not only is there no commentary on the Iranian elections to that effect, but some liberals can't even suppress their smile:

"Excuse Me, Mr. President?A question for George Bush: where were the Iranians you stand with, those who stand for freedom and democracy, on Friday? They must not have been at polls, for arch-conservative Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected the next president of the Islamic Republic in a landslide. Maybe they bought into your idea that the Iranian elections are a sham, or maybe they were too busy buying chadors and long-sleeved shirts in preparation for a return to strict Islamic codes of behavior, but despite some questions of fraud and voter intimidation, Ahmadinejad won with enough of a margin to put to rest the idea that Iranians are ready for regime-change. "

Real nice Hooman; a victory for religious oppression, a victory for radical Islam, and a victory for terrorism, but a loss for George Bush and that is reason enough to gloat. Spare me the tears the next time people accuse you of giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Friday, June 24, 2005

Life, and Death, and Little Green Frogs

Well.....that was interesting! My sincere thanks to Michelle Malkin and all the other bloggers who linked to the site yesterday and drove more traffic here than we've had since we started. Hopefully some of yesterday's visitors will continue to stop by, otherwise we'll just have to wait and see if lightening strikes twice.

Rather than try for a repeat blockbuster performance, I'd like to continue the tradition of keeping Friday pretty light. I just picked up Michael Crichton's book State of Fear, another techno-thriller-sci-fi extravaganza from the man who invented the genre. I find that his books are only as good as the subject matter (the story's always basically the same), so I was pleased to see dinosaurs or intelligent nanobots replaced by environmental extremists as the antagonists in this one.

Only a few pages in so I can't comment on the book itself, but the premise gave me an idea. I did a Google for global warming, just to see how much of a fuss was still being made about the earth's impending doom. Even I was surprised by what I found:

And that was just the first page of results published in the last 24 hours. Well, like you, I was starting to get a little scared. Surely they wouldn't be sounding the alarm so loudly if we weren't in dire peril. It's not like these people go around calling just anything an impending catastrophe.

I hate to comment on a Supreme Court ruling before the actual opinion is released, but this is too outrageous to let simmer:

"A divided Supreme Court ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth conflicts with individual property rights."

The case in a nutshell is that the city was suing individual homeowners who refused to sell their homes in order to make way for corporate development.The city's main contention was that the case fit within "the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for 'public use.'" Although the city planned to build a large corporate center, they argued that the additional jobs and tax revenues would serve the public, and therefore fulfilled the "public use" condition.

If you've been drinking the Left's Kool-Aid, you'd reasonably assume that the liberal judges on the court stood up for the little guy, while conservative ogres like Scalia and Thomas sided with big business. Hell, they probably volunteered to drive the bulldozers.

Open your eyes Little One, it's time to wake up to your socialist paradise.

What the Left didn't tell you is that the little guy is only worth protecting if he belongs to some larger, underprivileged group. The plaintiffs in this case were small business owners, and lived in Victorian Era houses; the state should be redistributing their wealth, not protecting it. Individual rights be damned, the greater good must prevail, the bourgeois must be defeated, the Motherland must survive!!!

Whoa, got a little wrapped up in the character there. At any rate let's look on the bright side: sure you're homeless, but Justice Ginsburg and the rest of the ACLU will defend your right to squat in the library, and anything you read while you're there will be strictly confidential.

Wednesday, June 22, 2005

Liberals Go Parading Through The Cemetary

Today I'd like to take one last look at the Terri Schiavo case. Specifically, I think it's worth taking stock of who's still talking about her, and in what context.

Up first, the Christian Defense Coalition. These are the bogeymen that want to break into your house and forcibly convert you, or so the Left would like you to believe. They released this statement yesterday in response to Michael Schiavo's distasteful choice of grave marker for Terri:

"By this one repugnant act, Michael Schiavo has revealed what we and the family knew all along. This was not a loving and caring husband that was concerned about the welfare of Terri. This was a self-centered and hateful man who believed Terri died 15 years ago and was doing all within his power to see that Terri was dehydrated and starved to death. This calls into question the role of Michael being Terri's guardian. For how could he have possibly looked out for her best interests when he felt she was already dead?"

Now whether you agree with the statement or not, it's hard to construe this statement as a political attack. It reads simply as the continued defense of Terri's worth from a group who believed it was acting in her best interests. These are the people that Frist and Delay were supposedly in cahouts with; how dastardly.

Granted Dean's a nutjob, but this sentiment has been repeated again and again by the Left: Terri Schiavo is an issue to be exploited in the coming elections. Odd when you consider this is the principal charge the Dems have leveled against Republicans on the issue. Meanwhile, the care for her as a human being that the Right has expressed is no where to be found on the Left. If they can't give her that, can't they at least let her rest in peace?

Tuesday, June 21, 2005

Not Your Uncle McCain's Bipartisanship

Back from an unintentional day off, sometimes things just get away from you...

I'm posting a long article today so I'll keep the commentary short. As ugly as the partisanship in America has gotten, I still hate "bipartisanship" more. At least in a traditional partisan debate you have two sides standing up for what they believe in. Bi-partisanship takes that balance and mutates it into a mushy middle ground where neither side is happy and nothing productive is accomplished, yet the participants get to brag about their momentous achievement (see: Filibuster Compromise).

The key to real bipartisanship is finding a cause that both sides can actually agree on but have avoided coming to a consensus on for political reasons. Illegal immigration is one such issue. No one wants to touch it for fear of alienating the Hispanic vote, but a vocal majority of the country from both sides of the aisle is demanding something be done.

In that spirit, I want to reprint a speech given by Richard Lamm, the former Democratic governor of Colorado. His speech is hard to ignore because it simply makes sense, and directly address the legitimate fears people have. I'd appreciate the opinion of anyone who disagrees, so without further ado:

I Have A Plan To Destroy America Richard D. Lamm

I have a secret plan to destroy America. If you believe, as many do, that America is too smug, too white bread, too self-satisfied, too rich, lets destroy America. It is not that hard to do. History shows that nations are more fragile than their citizens think. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and they all fall, and that "an autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide." here is my plan:

I. We must first make America a bilingual-bicultural country. History shows, in my opinion, that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. One scholar, Seymour Martin Lipset, put it this way:The histories of bilingual and bicultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy. Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon-all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with its Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans.

II. I would then invent "multiculturalism" and encourage immigrants to maintain their own culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal: that there are no cultural differences that are important. I would declare it an article of faith that the black and Hispanic dropout rate is only due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out-of-bounds.

III. We can make the United States a "Hispanic Quebec" without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic monthly recently: ...the apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentrically, and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together. I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with a salad bowl metaphor. It is important to insure that we have various cultural sub-groups living in America reinforcing their differences rather than Americans, emphasizing their similarities.

IV. Having done all this, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated - I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% drop out rate from school.

V. I would then get the big foundations and big business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of victimology. I would get allminorities to think their lack of success was all the fault of the majority - I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population.

VI. I would establish dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. I would "celebrate diversity." "Diversity" is a wonderfully seductive word. It stresses differences rather than commonalities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other-that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse," peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together, and we can take advantage of this myopia. Look at the ancient Greeks. Dorf's world history tells us:The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshiped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic Games in honor of Zeus and all Greeks venerated the shrine of Apollo at Delphi. A common enemy Persia threatened their liberty. Yet, all of these bonds together were not strong enough to overcome two factors . . . (local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions . . .) If we can put the emphasis on the "pluribus," instead of the "unum," we can balkanize America as surely as Kosovo.

VII. Then I would place all these subjects off limits - make it taboo to talk about. I would find a word similar to "heretic" in the 16th century - that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like "racist", "xenophobe" that halts argument and conversation. Having made America a bilingual-bicultural country, having established multiculturalism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of "victimology", I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra - "that because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good." I would make every individual immigrant sympatric and ignore the cumulative impact.

VIII. Lastly, I would censor Victor Davis Hanson’s book Mexifornia — this book is dangerous — it exposes my plan to destroy America. So please, please — if you feel that America deserves to be destroyed — please, please — don't buy this book! This guy is on to my plan."The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." — Noam Chomsky,American linguist and us media and foreign policy critic.

Friday, June 17, 2005

Tom and Katie Friday

In honor of this morning's big announcement, The Limburg Letter would like to do a special Friday Feature. Since the rest of the press will spend most of the day covering these two idiots, I would like to shine the spotlight on two other deserving morons who might not get the coverage they deserve.

We'll start by directing your attention to one Sen. Barack Obama. It's not the first time we've checked in on our friend from Illinois; last time he made the cut was for his fund-raising efforts on the behalf of Sen. Byrd. It struck us at the Letter as kind of odd that a black Senator and champion of civil rights would be out supporting a former Klansman, but apparently Sen. Byrd's activities are water under the bridge, long forgiven by understanding Democrats. Unfortunately, it looks like maybe Sen Obama has had a change of heart:

"Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said Thursday he was troubled by racially insensitive comments attributed more than a decade ago to a woman the Bush administration has tapped for a top State Department job and threatened to block her nomination until his concerns were addressed."

Then again, maybe he's just a spineless idiot who's content to have his strings pulled by the Democratic leadership. Disgraceful.

Of course it's one thing to make a fool of yourself domestically, and quite another to do it on the world stage. That just happens to be Sean Penn's specialty however, and his current assignment reporting on the Iranian "elections" is no exception. Take this gem for example:

"The actor caused a stir when he attended Friday prayers last week and heard the "Death to America" chants. But on a visit to Iran's Film Museum in Tehran this week he told a student that those oft-heard chants hurt Iran-U.S. relations.'I understand the nature of where it comes from and what its intention is,' he said. 'But I don't think it's productive because I think the message goes to the American people and it is interpreted very literally.'"

First of all, he "understand[s] the nature of where it comes from?" Oh...that's right; Sean's a member of the "we got what was coming to us on 9/11" crowd. How very deep of him to understand and sympathize with the people trying to kill us, no wonder he's an actor. Just one thing Sean, the reason those statements are "interpreted very literally" is because these people flew planes full of Americans into our buildings ! My God, how big an idiot (not to mention a complete ass) can one man be? At any rate, it puts Tom and Katie into perspective...

Thursday, June 16, 2005

Please Tell Me I'm Wrong

This morning Ms. Limburg and I were discussing Sen. Durbin's now infamous remarks, and we eventually settled on the only possible explanation being that's he's a complete and utter moron. It's like he did a Google for "really bad people" and just wrote down the first three names that popped up. With all the attention it's been getting, I expected a full apology from Dick by today, but instead we get this:

"This administration should apologize to the American people for abandoning the Geneva Conventions and authorizing torture techniques that put our troops at risk and make Americans less secure."

And it gets worse. The Daily Kos, a virtual Mecca for the new Democratic Party, is falling over itself to defend Durbin's remarks, declaring that:

"And let's not forget, "torture" was used as a rationale for this war -- as in, we'll invade and end the torture. Of course, none of that has happened. The torture that was so bad under Saddam, is equally bad under U.S. command. And Dick Durbin had the balls to say it so on the Senatefloor."

This simply makes no sense. Liberals with half a brain cell are trying to distance themselves from the Gitmo accusations, considering it's starting to look more like Club Med the more we hear about it. When a US Senator makes a statement like this, anyone who ever wants to be taken seriously again should run as far from him as possible. It's not happening.

Please tell me this is a joke. Please tell me the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy set this up to pull one over on the Right. If the Left stands behind Durbin's statements, then any hope that the Democrats can play a constructive role in the War on Terror is gone forever. They've lost touch with reality.

Wednesday, June 15, 2005

The Gitmo Bait and Switch

This is why you can't debate liberals. See, debate involves one side presenting a case supported with facts, and the other side refuting those facts in their own case. Liberals prefer to present a case, let the Right dispute those facts, and then sidestep the rebuttal by producing an entirely new case. It's a permanent stay of execution that usually involves eventually returning back to the original case, thereby "proving" it.

Seems we've finally come to that point in the Guantanamo Bay debate. Over the weekend, Rep. Duncan Hunter presented a booklet of regulations for handling prisoners at Gitmo. It detailed such abusive conduct as painting arrows toward Mecca to facilitate daily prayers, and a menu that's better than what I was served in my high school cafeteria. Now aside from being pissed off that they're paying for such nonsense, the average American reads this and wonders why the Left keeps crying about the conditions down there.

Rather than answer that question, the Left just slams on the brakes, throws the bandwagon in reverse, and races backwards to 2002. You may remember that it was the year the liberals made a full court press for full Geneva Convention rights for detainees. The average American responded with "they can all rot in hell for all we care" and that banner was quietly lowered when Abu Ghraib became the new cause de jour. Now, right on cue, the Left is trying to resurrect that argument. A two-second Google returned two breathlesseditorials, arguing that they were just kidding about the torture stuff, the real issue is that the "...most basic human rights aren’t respected, such as the right to know what he’s allegedly done, when he’s going to be tried, and how much time he’s going to have to spend in jail. "

Aside from the fact that it's a moronic argument (now "basic human rights "includes giving foreign combatants the same legal protection as an American citizen accused of shoplifting?), America has already rejected this garbage. Then again, in 2002 9/11 was still fresh in everyone's mind. It would be a shame if this argument sways anyone, as it would suggest we've already forgotten that this is a war, and we were attacked first.

Tuesday, June 14, 2005

The Dark Side of Capitalism

I hate to see this sort of thing. If for no other reason than that it fulfills all the worst stereotypes of the Left, Microsoft's complicity in the censorship of China's blogsphere is reprehensible. Of course it's not just Microsoft, or solely American companies for that matter. Just today there was an Australian editorial in the Wall Street Journal pleading that businesses not trade principle for access to China's economy:

"China is not a normal country, nor a particularly friendly one. Despite 20 years of reform, it is still a one-party state ruled by an authoritarian regime which ruthlessly suppresses those who challenge it."

Usually the desire to be seen as a responsible corporate citizen keeps companies from making decisions like this. Unfortunately the potential profits for Microsoft outweigh the potential losses caused by an angry public. There are good organizations, and good publications (like the Wall Street Journal) that are sounding the alarm. America needs to listen.

Monday, June 13, 2005

Patriotic Dissent vs. Weak-Kneed Flip-Flopping

Moxiegrrrl, my good friend with a bad case of liberalism, posted this story on her website and asked for the Republican response. As weary as I am of debating Iraq, the interview I read this morning with the foreign minister of Iraq gave me renewed enthusiasm. In that spirit I offer my response.

I don't care if it's a United States congressman or the guy who bags my groceries, their opinion on the war is only as good as the reason they arrived at it. Lets examine Mr. Jones' grievances:

"When I look at the number of men and women who have been killed — it's almost 1,700 now, in addition to close to 12,000 have been severely wounded — and I just feel that the reason of going in for weapons of mass destruction, the ability of the Iraqis to make a nuclear weapon, that's all been proven that it was never there."

His argument boils down to the fact that A.) freeing Iraq is all well and good so long as no one gets hurt, and B.) because the assumptions we originally made about Iraq were incorrect, it renders the cause null and void. To members of the Left this reasoning is totally sound, and you have to admit that its simplicity makes it appealing.

Above all it's politically convenient, as illustrated by Moxie's eagerness to embrace Jones as a model for other Republicans. Thank you, but I'd rather get my dissenting views from people who have exhibited a desire to understand the complexities of the situation. For example, here are two articles from reporters on the ground. They're not flattering, and they're not pretty, but for someone who wants to develop an informed opinion on the situation, they're essential.

If you're willing to look, the Right continues to offer constructive criticism of the way the war has been handled. It's exactly the type of dissent that people call "the highest form of patriotism". Mr. Jones' tired talking points are not.

Friday, June 10, 2005

Smiling Dictators and Sneering Deans

Why can't Howard Dean keep his mouth shut? I don't mean stupid things he keeps saying (that's just because he's a moron), I'm referring to the fact that he always has a sort of half smile, half sneer when he's on camera.I just noticed it this morning watching the video from his and Reid's press conference yesterday. Is he trying to keep his teeth dry or something? Dean's a doctor, maybe he knows something we don't.

On the smiling dictators front, check out this article posted yesterday on FoxNews.com:

"Four of the 14 Cubans intercepted at sea aboard a vintage taxi converted into a boat will be allowed to stay in the United States because they have valid immigration documents, but the others will be sent back to Cuba, U.S. officials said Thursday."

Wait a minute...I thought we opposed illegal immigration because we're all racists, why would we let these people in just because they have valid immigration papers? What kind of message does this send to potential illegal immigrants everywhere?

Not only does this article give us a great example of how immigration is supposed to work, we get the added treat of a peek inside Castro's worker's paradise:

"Diaz and his family last year won the documents in an annual lottery in Cuba for legal travel to the United States. But the communist government of President Fidel Castro refused to let the family leave."

Thursday, June 09, 2005

Wolves in Sheep's Clothing

Who could be against getting young people to vote? Sure they're immature, uninformed, reactionary, and worse, but some day they'll grow up, and when that happens we want them to be active citizens. To that end, Rock the Vote always seemed like a good idea; pander to the young people enough to get them interested in politics, then get them to the polls. I should have known better. After all, what do you get when you combine self-righteous adults with impressionable kids? Liberal activism!

"Rock the Vote is a non-profit, non-partisan organization, founded in 1990....The goal of Rock the Vote’s media campaigns and street team activities is to increase youth voter turnout."

I don't even know where to start; how about the "Rock the Vote Awards" held last night. Apparently the politicians rocking the vote the hardest this year were Bill Clinton, Barack O' Bama, and, to keep up appearances, John McCain. Two far-left Democrats and one weak-kneed Republican: the very definition of non-partisan.

Of course one could just dismiss it as inviting the politicians the kids are most into (O' Bama is pretty street), but how do you explain this:

This has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard of, a major campaign to convince young people not to support Social Security Reform. That's like the RNC starting a "Dump Affirmative Action" movement at Morehouse College. Actually it's worse, since you have to get kids to care about it first, before you convince them to oppose it. Listing the Democrats talking points probably isn't gonna get it done. Maybe they'll have luck with their other non-partisan causes, like government funded healthcare or fighting the nonexistent draft.

If you're like me, you wonder how the Democratic Party has any members at this point. Here's your answer. Get 'em while they're young and dumb, scare them into believing all the garbage to feed them, and then turn them loose at the polls. Oh yea, and sell them a $15 baby blue trucker hat if you can.

Wednesday, June 08, 2005

A Liberal's Guide to Judicial Activism

I have to apologize for my post today. My internet connection must be all messed up because nothing I'm reading is making sense. For instance, if I go to the Supreme Court's website, I find an opinion re-criminalizing medical marijuana use and the sole dissenters are Justices Thomas, Scalia, and O' Connor. Now I know that can't be right, because Thomas and Scalia are extremist right wing judges; they couldn't possibly disagree with a thing like that, especially if Bush supports it.

I though it might just be the website, so I went to the Wall Street Journal's page, but it's the same problem. They have an editorial explicitly stating that they oppose the legalization of medical marijuana, but then it goes on to complain about the decision! This is crazy, if you don't like something, you should be happy when the court criminalizes it and vice versa. This is making me nuts, I'm gonna do a quick reboot and try again.

Ok, that's much better. Must have been a problem with the router or something, because I just paid a visit to the People for the American Way online and everything seems in order. The site now correctly states that

"[Appeals Court nominee William] Pryor, who has used the power of his office to engage in extreme, right-wing judicial activism, must not be confirmed to this powerful lifetime position. "

After all,

"Pryor defended an Alabama statute prohibiting so-called "partial birth" abortions even though the law was plainly unconstitutional because it lacked an exception for the preservation of the health of the pregnant woman, as required by Roe v. Wade"

and Pryor filed briefs arguing for severe restrictions on federal authority in

"United States v. Morrison...in which the Court ruled 5-4 that the federal remedy for victims of sexual assault and violence in the Violence Against Women Act was unconstitutional"

See, that makes a lot more sense. Judicial activism is when you disagree with a court ruling that something is unconstitutional, unless of course that thing is a law like the Violence Against Women Act. Then you should know that its constitutionality is irrelevant; to claim otherwise is obvious activism.

I'm just glad we have the Left has given us such a simple way to decide cases. Otherwise we'd have to rely on know-nothing hacks like Thomas and Scalia.

UPDATE: Just found this perfect case study on The Nation today:"Of course, the federal government has a right--indeed, a responsibility--to intervene when the lives and liberties of Americans are threatened by the states, as has been the case when federal authorities have acted to protect the rights of racial minorities, women and people with disabilities. But to intervene with the express intent of denying Americans with serious diseases a generally well-regarded treatment option represents the worst sort of meddling by the federal government. "

Tuesday, June 07, 2005

For the Record

I'm assuming everyone has already heard about a case like this (unfortunately it's not the first one), but for the posterity I want to record it here.

"A 19-year-old (Mr. Flores) accused of causing his teenage girlfriend to miscarry two fetuses by stepping on her stomach was convicted Monday of two counts of murder...Erica Basoria, 17, acknowledged asking Flores to help end her pregnancy; she could not be prosecuted because of her legal right to abortion."

It's actually even worse than that. Before enlisting her boyfriend in the do-it-yourself abortion, Ms. Basoria

"...started jogging and hitting herself to induce a miscarriage."

I honestly wouldn't believe it if I hadn't read it for myself.

And let's not forget, the Left believes that:

Ms. Basoria committed no crime

Mr. Flores committed no crime

There is no victim in this scenario

Ms. Basoria is a mature enough woman to make a decision about abortion without parental guidance or approval

Had Ms. Basoria not been pregnant, Mr. Flores should be sent to jail, even if Ms. Basoria was not willing to press charges

Feel free to add your own, but I can't do anymore. It hurts my head to have to think like a liberal.

Monday, June 06, 2005

***EXCLUSIVE*** Limburg Uncovers Evidence of the Worst Abuse Yet

So this report on the alleged Koran abuses at Guantanamo Bay was released last Friday, and liberal heads everywhere exploded with righteous indignation. In a nutshell, it revealed that:

"... of nine mishandling cases that were studied in detail by reviewing thousands of pages of written records, five were confirmed. He could not determine conclusively whether the other four took place."

and specifically:

"In the March incident, as described in the report, the guard had left his observation post to go outside to urinate. The wind blew his urine through an air vent into the cell block. The guard's supervisor reprimanded him and assigned him to gate guard duty, where he had no contact with detainees, for the rest of his assignment at Guantanamo Bay."

Unfortunately, most were already sans head before they got to the part that stated

"Hood also said his investigation found 15 cases of detainees mishandling their own Korans. 'These included using a Koran as a pillow, ripping pages out of the Koran, attempting to flush a Koran down the toilet and urinating on the Koran,' Hood's report said. It offered no possible explanation for the detainees' motives."

If you haven't studied the Left as closely as I have, you might be tempted to take the above excerpt and repeat it to every gloating Lib you meet. Resist this urge! If this news of flushing and urination starts making the rounds on the liberal blogs, we'll have to deal with new allegations of the worst abuse of all: denying prisoners access to this.

Friday, June 03, 2005

The Company You Keep

"Cheney is hated as the most cruel monster and bloodthirsty beast, as he has drenched various parts of the world in blood"

I know what you're thinking, but no, Howard Dean didn't say it. Neither did MoveOn.org, although I'm sure they find it hilarious and agree wholeheartedly. This quote actually comes from a Foreign Ministry spokesman for North Korea. Yes, that North Korea.

The quote itself can be dismissed as a desperate insult from a bunch of pathetic fools, but what does that say about people in this country who echo the sentiment? When North Korea says something like that, you can almost see the sarcastic grin, but the Left can make such a declaration with a straight face. Just this week, we had Amnesty International (which is as nonpartisan as Barbara Boxer) declaring that the US was running a Gulag in Guantanamo Bay, further fueling the "torture" allegations that always seem to make it above the fold in the NYT.

Am I the only one that finds it odd that allegations of torture by the US and UK is front page news everyday, yet the only time North Korea makes the news is when they call Cheney a "bloodthirsty beast"? I would never accuse the MSM of trying to manipulate public opinion, but maybe it's because their favorite story would suffer by comparison. For example, which of these quotes do you think people would remember if they were placed side by side?

"In one photograph, the 22-year-old reservist held a leash looped around the neck of a hooded, naked prisoner. Another showed her next to nude prisoners stacked in a pyramid, while a third depicted England pointing at a prisoner's genitals as a cigarette dangled from her lips."

"In interrogations aimed at forcing a confession, Lee, now 56, was also subjected to water torture. She says guards force-fed her water by pushing the spout of a canister into her mouth. They laid a wooden plank across her abdomen--and pressed down, forcing water out through her mouth, nose, and bladder. "It feels like your intestines are exploding. There's no way even to describe the pain you feel," she recalls, with no trace of emotion. "

Maybe forgetting about North Korea was a simple oversight by the media, but Amnesty International seems to have made the same mistake. They've only published one report on North Korea in the last year and a half, but at least three concerning allegations of US torture. Interestingly, one of the only journalists reporting on the PRK is liberal journalist Christopher Hitchens, who's been crucified by the Left for supporting the war and trying to put the Abu Ghraib allegations in perspective.

No one (that I'm aware of) is claiming that no abuse took place, but the people responsible are being punished, and the press should be applauded for the role they played in making that happen. It is one thing however, to be a watchdog, and another to be an attack dog. When members of the press and a majority of the Left are parroting statements made by the world's worst human rights abuser in order to criticize the world's best human rights defender, they have shifted to the latter.

Thursday, June 02, 2005

I'm Sure It Sounds Great When They Read It to Themselves

As a long suffering reader of most of the popular liberal blogs, I think I've finally cracked the template they use to come up with posts everyday. I assume there's a template involved at least, since one would be hard-pressed to produce such a consistent level of crap day in and day out (a million monkeys chained to a million typewriters after all). To illustrate my point we'll use The Huffington Post, a blog that really raised the bar in terms of quantity and....well, the opposite of quality.

As a liberal blogger, one must assume one of two states of mind when preparing to write: taking yourself too seriously, or thinking you're actually funny. Neither one is really worse than the other, although each evokes its own unique cringe from any reader with half a brain cell. Rarely, a writer will become confused and assume both in the same post (See: anything by Michael Moore), but we'll save that for an advanced class, as it frequently induces vomiting.

Randall Robinson's post today is what inspired this topic. It's so textbook, so nauseating, that the world would be a worse place if I didn't bring it to someone's attention. Randall must have partied too hard this weekend, because he's just getting around to the Memorial Day edition of his anti-war rant.To open he declares "I can no longer bear it", and follows by dropping the bombshell that soldiers are dying in Iraq. Wow, I had no idea! Luckily Randall has a simple solution to stop the bloodshed. He proposes this incredibly insightful question to the President:

"[W]ould the war in Iraq have been worth the loss of a single human life, had that life been yours?"

No doubt President Bush just dropped his copy of the article and muttered, "My God, what have I done?" Bravo Randall, Bravo.

Don't worry though folks, liberals aren't all doom and gloom. Take Gina Nahai, a fun-loving Lib (I'm just guessing her bio reads something like this) who isn't afraid to stick it to the man...and leave them rolling in the aisles! Gina woke up with the hilarious idea of suggesting Bush invade Vatican City in order to bring democracy to those repressed citizens. What brilliant satire, I mean for God's sake , they don't even allow gay porn to be shown in the Sistine Chapel! Not one to be concerned with actually being funny, Gina runs with this idea for about 2,000 words, and manages to never make a valid point. Incredible.

Sometimes, in my weakest moments, I fantasize about becoming one of them. I could just wake up, write an article about how Cheney hates minorities, and go back to bed. It's tempting, but I think I'll pass. I'd really hate to have to punch myself in the face every time I look in the mirror.

Wednesday, June 01, 2005

The Original Left-Wing Conspiracy

Well, it's official. Mark "Who the Hell is Mark Felt" Felt has officially come forward as the mysterious Deep Throat. This is fitting, since anyone born after 1980 is equally familiar with (What the Hell was) Watergate. They might know it had something to do with Nixon being a very, very evil man, but that's all their teachers would tell them. There's a very easy "Deep Throat" joke here too but I'll leave it on the table.

I admit I had to do a little research to figure out who this guy was, but I was actually surprised at how many people pinned him as Deep Throat. The Atlantic published an article almost 15 years ago pegging him as the prime candidate. I don't think this is an insignificant fact, because how they came to the correct conclusion says a lot about this man's motives, and will hopefully lay to rest the "Deep Throat as an American Hero" myth that's still being thrown around today.

I won't go into great detail because I'd only be plagiarizing The Atlantic's article. To summarize, Felt was the number three guy in the FBI under Hoover. When Hoover kicked off Felt, by his own admission, considered himself the heir-apparent. Nixon, in an attempt to break apart what had become an autocratic organization under Hoover, immediately appointed Assistant Attorney General Patrick Grey. Naturally the FBI didn't like this, least of all Felt. Yada Yada Yada, Nixon get's impeached.

The "Yada Yada Yada" has always been that Woodward and Bernstein made contact with a concerned whistle-blower to take down a corrupt president, but in light of this revelation, let's look at what was actually going on. After Hoover died, there was a vacuum of power in Washington. Nixon's White House rushed to fill it, and the FBI needed another avenue if they ever hoped to get it back. Enter the MSM. Eager to dig up dirt on Nixon, they essentially allowed themselves to be used as a pawn in the power struggle between two establishments that they hated. Luckily for them, they got to write the history for 30 years: W, B, and DT were the heroes that saved the Republic, Nixon was the Antichrist until liberals realized that it's actually Bush.

Somehow I doubt publishers are in a hurry to correct the textbooks. The "David and Goliath" nature of the story, along with the assumed purity of the protagonists, makes for history that's too good to correct. And besides, if anyone actually learned who Mark Felt was, they might stumble upon the fact that he was convicted of approving illegal break-ins (God I love irony), only to be pardoned by some insignificant president named Reagan.